Jeb Blames Obama And Clinton for Iraq War

[summer]

Um.....




nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/jebs-new-iraq-stance-mission-accomplished.html

In the early months of his candidacy, Jeb Bush fumbled whenever he faced extremely predictable questions about his brother's foreign policy. When asked about Iraq again at last week's debate, he said that knowing what we know now, "it was a mistake," then inelegantly pivoted from praising veterans to blaming Obama for the current situation in the Middle East. This week Bush debuted a new stance: whatever mistakes President George W. Bush made along the way, the Iraq War ultimately turned out for the best (at least, until President Obama and Hillary Clinton messed it all up).



On Thursday in Iowa, he even used one of the most notorious lines from his brother's presidency. "I've been critical and I think people have every right to be critical of decisions that were made," Bush said at a Q&A hosted by Americans for Peace, Prosperity and Security. "In 2009, Iraq was fragile but secure. It was mission was accomplished in the way that there was security there and it was because of the heroic efforts of the men and women in the Untied States military that it was so."



Bush also declared, "taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal." He said it was a mistake to stop the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' metadata because there's no evidence that "civil liberties were violated, that people's privacy was violated." He defended the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, saying he's been there and "this is not a torture chamber."



Torture is one point where Jeb slightly disagrees with W. He thinks that "torture is not appropriate," and he credited his brother with ending enhanced interrogation techniques (which the George W. Bush administration initially authorized). "The change of policy that my brother did and then was put into executive order form by [President Obama] was the proper thing to do," he explained. But Bush wouldn't commit to keeping that executive order in place, saying, "I don't want to make a definitive, blanket kind of statement."



In a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Tuesday, Bush argued that President Obama and Hillary Clinton should be blamed for the current situation in Iraq, not his brother. "Why was the success of the [2007 troop] surge followed by a withdrawal from Iraq, leaving not even the residual force that commanders and the joint chiefs knew was necessary?" Bush said. "And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this? Like the president himself, she had opposed the surge, then joined in claiming credit for its success, then stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away."



Trying to turn one of his biggest liabilities into a problem for Clinton is a bold strategy, but so far there isn't much evidence that it's working. Following Bush's remarks, a number of people pointed out that the withdrawal was his brother's idea. "I remind everybody that us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration. That was always the plan, we had promised them that we would respect their sovereignty," said U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, an architect of the surge.



And the New Yorker's Dexter Filkins argued that while Clinton "played a supporting role in a disastrously managed withdrawal," that stemmed from a "disastrously managed war itself." Plus, she wanted to leave some troops in Iraq:



By all accounts, she was one of the people inside the Administration who advocated for keeping a residual force in Iraq. “Hillary very much wanted to keep troops in the country,” James Jeffrey, the American Ambassador to Iraq at the time, told me. This does not amount, in Jeb’s words, to “standing by” while Iraq burned.

When asked about that point on Thursday, Bush called it an "aggressive effort to rewrite history," saying it was obvious that Obama needed to renegotiate the Bush administration's agreement.





Bush's nuanced (or rather, factually shaky) argument may win over some Republicans, but convincing America that Obama and Clinton deserve more blame for the Iraq War fallout than the president who started it is a tall order. It seems the only mission Jeb accomplished this week was providing sound bites for attack ads linking him to his brother.

[ECB]

That's it- spin, spin, spin that horrible job that your brother did. Go ahead, keep trying Jeb.

[miniroller]

No Jeb, this isn't a road you want to travel. Much safer to stay in the former ho-hum boat of ambivalence. Now you just look like an idiot, a liar, or both.

[jillboston]

He is really really bad at this stuff.

[eclaires]

Get it together JEB!!! We need you to not be a bumbling idiot on something completely predictable so we can have Clinton/Bush 2.0.

Give the people what they want. I mean, me. Give me what I want.

[IIOY]

summer's gif in the OP is everything.

[tacosforlife]

I am dying, DYING I tell you, that Jeb! Is the one accusing anyone of "aggressively trying to rewrite history."

LOL.

[bowies]

I know Trump is getting the attention right now but Jeb!'s incompetent campaign is THE story for me. I am utterly fascinated/dumbfounded. Did this article mention that Paul Wolfowitz is Jeb!'s foreign policy advisor? Or that he consults his brother on this stuff too? Goddamnit Jeb! how are you this stupid?

[NewOrleans]

um

[IIOY]

Aug 14, 2015 8:07:44 GMT -5 bowies said:

I know Trump is getting the attention right now but Jeb!'s incompetent campaign is THE story for me. I am utterly fascinated/dumbfounded. Did this article mention that Paul Wolfowitz is Jeb!'s foreign policy advisor? Or that he consults his brother on this stuff too? Goddamnit Jeb! how are you this stupid?

Man, I saw this a while back and was shocked that no one here had been discussing this.  I find this terrifying.

[tacosforlife]

Aug 14, 2015 8:36:05 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:07:44 GMT -5 bowies said:

I know Trump is getting the attention right now but Jeb!'s incompetent campaign is THE story for me. I am utterly fascinated/dumbfounded. Did this article mention that Paul Wolfowitz is Jeb!'s foreign policy advisor? Or that he consults his brother on this stuff too? Goddamnit Jeb! how are you this stupid?

Man, I saw this a while back and was shocked that no one here had been discussing this.  I find this terrifying.

At the risk of sounding like a meanie liberal posing GOTCHA questions, I am really curious to hear what those who have indicated they liked Jeb! think about this. I know we have a few posters who have indicated they'd consider voting for him. 

[ECB]

I can remember reading an article years ago that talked about how Jeb was really the one who was supposed to run back when W did. I forget what the given reason was as to why it ended up being W instead. But the article basically said that Jeb was the smart one and was the one who should have run and that it basically got taken from him so that W could run.

Seeing all this that's going on now, I'm thinking "Really? He was pegged as the smart one? Are EITHER of them smart??".

[NewOrleans]

Aug 14, 2015 8:07:44 GMT -5 bowies said:

Paul Wolfowitz is Jeb!'s foreign policy advisor? Or that he consults his brother on this stuff too? 

[bowies]

Aug 14, 2015 8:43:05 GMT -5 ECB said:

I can remember reading an article years ago that talked about how Jeb was really the one who was supposed to run back when W did. I forget what the given reason was as to why it ended up being W instead. But the article basically said that Jeb was the smart one and was the one who should have run and that it basically got taken from him so that W could run.

Seeing all this that's going on now, I'm thinking "Really? He was pegged as the smart one? Are EITHER of them smart??".

Jeb! was "supposed" to win the governorship in 1994, but Chiles was re-elected. Jeb! had to wait until 1998, which meant he couldn't be ready in time for a 2000 Presidential campaign.

[StrawberryBlondie]

OK, then. Sure.

[ESF]

Aug 14, 2015 8:07:44 GMT -5 bowies said:

Did this article mention that Paul Wolfowitz is Jeb!'s foreign policy advisor? Or that he consults his brother on this stuff too?

Are you fucking serious?

Ok, that's it. Jeb! You are too drunk to drive the clown car. Kasich, take the wheel.

[eclaires]

Aug 14, 2015 8:38:51 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:36:05 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Man, I saw this a while back and was shocked that no one here had been discussing this.  I find this terrifying.

At the risk of sounding like a meanie liberal posing GOTCHA questions, I am really curious to hear what those who have indicated they liked Jeb! think about this. I know we have a few posters who have indicated they'd consider voting for him. 

My only criteria for voting in the primary is voting for the candidate running the most moderate in an effort to make my voice heard about where the party is headed.  Beyond that, I really haven't put much thought into it.  Well besides my secondary (or is it my primary reason...) to see Bush v. Clinton 2.0.

This doesn't impact my choice if he's running the most moderate campaign.  But I'm pretty sure I'm not voting R in the general anyway...I have said I would consider him though so I thought I would answer.  I don't think I've said I would consider him in the general (I can't remember for sure), though, because I'm looking at 3rd party or HRC at this moment in time.

[NewOrleans]

Aug 14, 2015 9:04:23 GMT -5 ESF said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:07:44 GMT -5 bowies said:

Did this article mention that Paul Wolfowitz is Jeb!'s foreign policy advisor? Or that he consults his brother on this stuff too?

Are you fucking serious?

Ok, that's it. Jeb! You are too drunk to drive the clown car. Kasich, take the wheel.

Not even Jesus will take the wheel of that shit.

[AJL]

[bowies]

Aug 14, 2015 9:09:38 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Aug 14, 2015 8:38:51 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

At the risk of sounding like a meanie liberal posing GOTCHA questions, I am really curious to hear what those who have indicated they liked Jeb! think about this. I know we have a few posters who have indicated they'd consider voting for him. 

My only criteria for voting in the primary is voting for the candidate running the most moderate in an effort to make my voice heard about where the party is headed.  Beyond that, I really haven't put much thought into it.  Well besides my secondary (or is it my primary reason...) to see Bush v. Clinton 2.0.

This doesn't impact my choice if he's running the most moderate campaign.  But I'm pretty sure I'm not voting R in the general anyway...I have said I would consider him though so I thought I would answer.  I don't think I've said I would consider him in the general (I can't remember for sure), though, because I'm looking at 3rd party or HRC at this moment in time.

I completely understand this. You would think the repeated nomination of a moderate would sink in at some point...give us a moderate, but to win you have to bring us a GOOD CANDIDATE.